jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (10 posts)

What qualifies a person or former president of a country to be charged for crime

  1. moiponetsoka profile image71
    moiponetsokaposted 5 years ago

    What qualifies a person or former president of a country to be charged for crimes against humanity?

  2. swordsbane profile image61
    swordsbaneposted 5 years ago

    Like any crime, there needs to be an accusation and some kind of evidence that points to the accused.  Before that, there needs to be a CLEAR description of what a crime against humanity is.

    If you're talking international crimes, then the Human Rights Commission has to be overhauled before we can do that.  It is overstocked by nations who are chronic human rights violators.  This is how insulting a religion was turned into a Rights Violation on the international scene.

    1. moiponetsoka profile image71
      moiponetsokaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      wow i never knew that thanks

  3. Attikos profile image80
    Attikosposted 5 years ago

    The qualification is being on the wrong side politically. For example, after Salvador Allende left office, he visited Europe for medical treatment. He was seized and held for a long time on accusations of human rights violations. The question at the time was asked, why were international arrest warrants not issued for Fidel Castro? It would seem that if one brutal Latin dictator is to be arrested for trial in Brussels, then so would another. The answer was that a sitting ruler cannot be charged.

    After Fidel Castro left office, he visited Europe for medical treatment. He was wined and dined, then sent back to Cuba in style when he wanted to go. The question was asked, why was he not seized and held on accusations of human rights violations? The answer was a dead silence from the Europeans.

    The difference is Allende was an eevul rightie, Castro a loony leftie. The difference is in their respective political leanings, nothing more. Similarly, you now hear sanctimonious demands that W. Bush be charged with crimes before the ICJ for invading Iraq, but dead silence when it is mentioned that if he is then Obama must be charged for invading Libya.

    Politics. That is the only qualification. International law is a joke.

    1. moiponetsoka profile image71
      moiponetsokaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      that is very interesting thank you

  4. Lions Den Media profile image62
    Lions Den Mediaposted 5 years ago

    Both swordsbane and Attikos are correct. One of the primary issues is that any charge be backed by a strong legitimate nation state for any action to be taken. But Attikos is dead on and I would say that "politics" and being on the right (whatever that may be at the time) side of the issue is the most important factor. And until one becomes a "former" president there can be no charges brought.

    1. moiponetsoka profile image71
      moiponetsokaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      thank you

  5. wingedcentaur profile image83
    wingedcentaurposted 5 years ago

    Hi molponetsoka! How's it going?

    I'm sure you know that you've asked a very, very, very charged question. We're all grownups here, and therefore I'm sure we all understand that the entities with the power makes the rules -- which never, somehow, seem to apply (for one reason or another) to those rule-making entities. At least that's how it is in this world.

    The short answer to your question (or A short answer) is genocide: the deliberate attempt to wipe out a group of people belonging to a specific 'race,' ethnic group, religion, or what-have-you. Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity; it is the ultimate crime against the very idea of humanity.

    I am no expert in these matters, but I understand that there is sometimes some politically-motivated misapplication of the term and ambiguity of application in situations, countries where civil wars are going on. My understanding that killing in a civil war is not genocide or a crime against humanity; the killing, in this instance, is just what both or all sides 'have to do' to survive.

    I always thought torture, or what the United States euphemistically calls 'enhanced interrogation techniques' was a crime against humanity, because it is a crime against the very idea of humanity -- human beings (being human beings) should not do things to other human beings like, say, make him stand on one foot all day, covered in a black hood, with fake electrodes attached to his private parts, telling him that if he lets his foot fall he will be electrocuted, for example.

    Just a thought. Thanks for the question. Take it easy.

    1. moiponetsoka profile image71
      moiponetsokaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      thank you for taking time to answer my question.

  6. BizGenGirl profile image89
    BizGenGirlposted 5 years ago

    There are plenty of things that qualify a president for crimes against humanity, the real trick isn't the conviction, is the consequences. Even if you were able to charge and convict a pres or former-pres, there is very little you could do to actually have them pay for their crimes.

 
working